The Early Church Worshipped According To The 'New Testament Pattern'????

[AJB4]

What the heck?!:scratch: When I read this I couldn't help laughing a bit. I was reading a 'Voice of Truth' magazine (some CoCers may read them), and one of the articles in there (surprise, surprise, about denominationalism) said that the early church worshipped according to the New Testament pattern. This was interesting to hear, as they didn't even have the New Testament back then. Not that they needed it, as they had word-of-mouth from Jesus and the Apostles themselves, but back then, there was no mass-production. If they had the NT back then, the writers would've had to write millions of copies manually. At the very most, they would've had the Tanakh. At that point, that was their Bible. It's simply impossible that they had the New Testament, at least in an even close to complete book form. In 33AD, they would've had nothing, except the Holy Spirit, and word-of-mouth from Jesus and the apostles. There was no 'New Testament pattern' for them to follow...weird.

[buzuxi02]

What the heck?!:scratch: When I read this I couldn't help laughing a bit. I was reading a 'Voice of Truth' magazine (some CoCers may read them), and one of the articles in there (surprise, surprise, about denominationalism) said that the early church worshipped according to the New Testament pattern. This was interesting to hear, as they didn't even have the New Testament back then. Not that they needed it, as they had word-of-mouth from Jesus and the Apostles themselves, but back then, there was no mass-production. If they had the NT back then, the writers would've had to write millions of copies manually. At the very most, they would've had the Tanakh. At that point, that was their Bible. It's simply impossible that they had the New Testament, at least in an even close to complete book form. In 33AD, they would've had nothing, except the Holy Spirit, and word-of-mouth from Jesus and the apostles. There was no 'New Testament pattern' for them to follow...weird.

lololol. But hat exactly is the new tetament pattern to begin with?

[AJB4]

lololol. But hat exactly is the new tetament pattern to begin with?

The 'pattern' decided upon by the people in the 3rd or 4th centuries who organised the New Testament into book form, as guided by the Holy Ghost, obviously :D . Although, that leaves a two-century-long gap. That's when the CoC says Christianity slid into Apostacy, but what would they have had to keep themselves from sliding into Apostacy, as the New Testament didn't exist as a book yet? They would've had to rely on the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers, such as St. Ignatius and Polycarp, and other direct students of the 12 themselves.

Now, as they were direct students of the Apostles, I doubt that they would've fallen into Apostacy easily. They would've known what to do. The Holy Spirit would've kept them from falling into Apostacy because there was simply no other way to preserve the teachings, as the NT didn't exist in book form yet, and was probably unavailable to the vast majority of early Christians. Obviously, in Ignatius' early letter to Smyrna when he told the church there to submit to their Bishop (singular, not plural), obviously that was the right thing to do. I don't think he'd be that thick as to be taught directly by Apostles, who were directly taught by Jesus himself. As the Apostles were spirit-guided, and directly taught fellows such as Ignatius, Iggy would've easily known what to do.

That's why the doctrine of Apostolic Succession makes a whole lot of sense to me - in the absense of the complete NT to the very vast majority of the Christian world, they had the Apostles, after Jesus' death and ascension, that taught a new generation of Apostles, hand-picked by the Apostles themselves, as guided by the Holy Spirit, who then carried the teachings - the CORRECT teachings, into the future generations, and that the original church was very likely an Apostolic one (eg, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox). If it weren't for the Apostolic Fathers, such as Iggy and Poly, Christianity probably wouldn't be the largest religion in the world today. In fact, it would probably would've almost ceased to exist. It makes sense that the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles into hand-choosing third-generation Apostles to continue the teachings of the early church, until the New Testament could finally be mass-produced and freely available to everyone. Of course, after that, problems arose, and people began founding churches that they believed were the 'true biblical ones'. The devil didn't waste any time confuzzling people.

Of course, those two churches, at least until the schism, were united, but the Church of Rome and the other Churches, disagreed over certain matters, such as musical instruments, and the Holy Spirit. Obviously, since Rome on its own seemed to be the 'problem child' from the start, introduced many 'different' kinds of things, and broke away from the previously united Apostolic Christianity, if the doctrine of Apostolic Succession were to be true, then one of those churches would've had to have been right - the odds are stacked against Rome, as they were the only ones to disagree on something. The rest of the churches were united (those churches would today comprise the Eastern Orthodox Church).

OR there's the less likely possibility that Rome was the only church to find fault in the teachings of the early Apostolic Christian Church, and broke away from the others as the only church to recognize the heresies that the others were perhaps practising.

Not to pick on the Catholics, but as they have a catechism as big as the Bible itself, introduced sprinkling and pouring, rather than immersion, introduced many various other doctrines that other churches seems to be at great odds with (including Purgatory, Guilt AND Consequence of Original Sin etc.), and the other churches seemed to be more 'grounded', I'd tend to trust Orthodoxy more, although I'm not anti-Catholic in the slightest.

[JDIBe]

The 'pattern' decided upon by the people in the 3rd or 4th centuries who organised the New Testament into book form, as guided by the Holy Ghost, obviously :D . Although, that leaves a two-century-long gap. That's when the CoC says Christianity slid into Apostacy, but what would they have had to keep themselves from sliding into Apostacy, as the New Testament didn't exist as a book yet? They would've had to rely on the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers, such as St. Ignatius and Polycarp, and other direct students of the 12 themselves.

Now, as they were direct students of the Apostles, I doubt that they would've fallen into Apostacy easily. They would've known what to do. The Holy Spirit would've kept them from falling into Apostacy because there was simply no other way to preserve the teachings, as the NT didn't exist in book form yet, and was probably unavailable to the vast majority of early Christians. Obviously, in Ignatius' early letter to Smyrna when he told the church there to submit to their Bishop (singular, not plural), obviously that was the right thing to do. I don't think he'd be that thick as to be taught directly by Apostles, who were directly taught by Jesus himself. As the Apostles were spirit-guided, and directly taught fellows such as Ignatius, Iggy would've easily known what to do.

That's why the doctrine of Apostolic Succession makes a whole lot of sense to me - in the absense of the complete NT to the very vast majority of the Christian world, they had the Apostles, after Jesus' death and ascension, that taught a new generation of Apostles, hand-picked by the Apostles themselves, as guided by the Holy Spirit, who then carried the teachings - the CORRECT teachings, into the future generations, and that the original church was very likely an Apostolic one (eg, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox). If it weren't for the Apostolic Fathers, such as Iggy and Poly, Christianity probably wouldn't be the largest religion in the world today. In fact, it would probably would've almost ceased to exist. It makes sense that the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles into hand-choosing third-generation Apostles to continue the teachings of the early church, until the New Testament could finally be mass-produced and freely available to everyone. Of course, after that, problems arose, and people began founding churches that they believed were the 'true biblical ones'. The devil didn't waste any time confuzzling people.

Of course, those two churches, at least until the schism, were united, but the Church of Rome and the other Churches, disagreed over certain matters, such as musical instruments, and the Holy Spirit. Obviously, since Rome on its own seemed to be the 'problem child' from the start, introduced many 'different' kinds of things, and broke away from the previously united Apostolic Christianity, if the doctrine of Apostolic Succession were to be true, then one of those churches would've had to have been right - the odds are stacked against Rome, as they were the only ones to disagree on something. The rest of the churches were united (those churches would today comprise the Eastern Orthodox Church).

OR there's the less likely possibility that Rome was the only church to find fault in the teachings of the early Apostolic Christian Church, and broke away from the others as the only church to recognize the heresies that the others were perhaps practising.

Not to pick on the Catholics, but as they have a catechism as big as the Bible itself, introduced sprinkling and pouring, rather than immersion, introduced many various other doctrines that other churches seems to be at great odds with (including Purgatory, Guilt AND Consequence of Original Sin etc.), and the other churches seemed to be more 'grounded', I'd tend to trust Orthodoxy more, although I'm not anti-Catholic in the slightest.
Oh wow, AJ.... so many things here.

To start, the early church did worship according to the NT Pattern. They created the pattern! They had the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Apostles. As time went on, people started to drift away. That is why the RM makes a point to go back to the earliest churches and see what they did. The closer you are to a source (generally) the more you can be sure it's story is correct.

The way we interpret the Bible in the RM is by...
1. Command
2. Example
3. Necessary inference

Second, there is considerable evidence for an earlier Canon than 300-400 AD. The Gospels and Epistles were much more widespread than you think.

Third, if there is such a thing as Apostolic succession, where are the Apostles today?

[Jacob4707]

Obviously, since Rome on its own seemed to be the 'problem child' from the start, introduced many 'different' kinds of things, and broke away from the previously united Apostolic Christianity, if the doctrine of Apostolic Succession were to be true, then one of those churches would've had to have been right - the odds are stacked against Rome, as they were the only ones to disagree on something. The rest of the churches were united (those churches would today comprise the Eastern Orthodox Church).

OR there's the less likely possibility that Rome was the only church to find fault in the teachings of the early Apostolic Christian Church, and broke away from the others as the only church to recognize the heresies that the others were perhaps practising.

According to Jaroslav Pelikan in the 2nd volume of his series on Christian doctrine, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) (Pelikan was the world's foremost Lutheran authority on Luther and also perhaps on the history of Christian doctrine, until he converted to Orthodoxy in the 1990s and took a post at St. Vladimir's Seminary - at which point he became the world's foremost Orthodox authority on Luther), one argument for Rome that even Orthodox admit to and have to face is that for the first several centuries of the Church, the Roman see held to and proclaimed the Orthodox and Apostolic faith, whereas the other centers like Constantinople, etc., were where many of the early heresies came from, including heretical bishops. When it comes to the issue of which side most clearly held the Apostolic faith - i.e., Rome versus the East - the lines and history are not as clear or one-sided as some claim them to be.

You might want to supplement your online reading with Pelikan's books. They're rather inexpensive, and can for the most part be understood by people who otherwise don't have much theological training, IMO.

[gtsecc]

Third, if there is such a thing as Apostolic succession, where are the Apostles today?
Bishops.

[Breaking Babylon]

Third, if there is such a thing as Apostolic succession, where are the Apostles today?
Read about the Archbishop Saint John Maximovitch, who only recently reposed in 1966, for a very strong account of a modern day Apostle.

[Siderite]

Bishops.
I think the poster meant where are the apostles in a literal sense - the apostles as known in biblical times (power of the Holy Spirit and all that - those disciples of Christ)

Correct me if I'm wrong....

[Breaking Babylon]

The original Apostles are still at work in the Church, only not physically. Bishops such as Saint Isaac the Syrian, Saint John Maximovitch, etc were still working miracles through the Holy Spirit well after the earthly ministry of Christ.

[JDIBe]

Bishops.

I have to respectfully disagree with you there. That does not seem to be the way the Bible uses the term "Bishop"...

Acts 20:17-28

17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders of the church.
18 And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, after what manner I was with you all the time,
19 serving the Lord with all lowliness of mind, and with tears, and with trials which befell me by the plots of the Jews;
20 how I shrank not from declaring unto you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly, and from house to house,
21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
23 save that the Holy Spirit testifieth unto me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.
24 But I hold not my life of any account as dear unto myself, so that I may accomplish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more.
26 Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.
28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

This passage seems to indicate the term "Bishop" and "Elder" (whose qualifications are listed in I Tim. 3:1-7 & Titus 1:5-9) and are synonymous. Paul could not have been referring to Apostles here as the Apostles were not in Ephesus at the time. These could not logically be "later apostles" as the original Apostles were still alive.

I agree with Blake's statement that the Apostles are still at work in today's church. They certainly work through the Written Word that has been handed down to us. In this sense, I suppose, we have "Apostolic Tradition" i.e. the teachings and "traditions" of the Apostles. Elders today carry on that work according to the Scriptures, but that does not make them an Apostle themselves. It is a question of authority.

But that was not the OP statement as I perceived it. The poster clearly states that the "Holy Spirit guided the Apostles into hand choosing 3rd generation Apostles." Do you guys believe this to be true? I would be very interested in knowing who they were, and a line of sucession from there.

Archbishop Maximovitch seems to have been a very good person. But that does not make him an Apostle. He did not ever claim to be one from what little I have read. Sometimes we are in such awe of a person, we find ourselves attempting to bestow a special title to them to express our admiration. But "Apostle" is a title that does not fit today. It does not diminish the Archbishops's greatness. It's just an inappropiate description. There's a great thread on "21 Century Apostles" on the Anabaptist forum that is worth looking through if you wish.

On a lighter note, let me just say to our Orthodox and Anglican friends, thanks for stopping by. It's nice to meet you. Feel free to hang around with us a while.

[AJB4]

It's impossible to me that the NT was available almost at all before the 300-400s. After all, there was no mass-production (everything would've had to have been written by hand.) Perhaps some copies of things would've been reproduced by hand, but the vast majority would not have had the NT as we know it today, in complete book form.

Of course the church created the pattern. But, in the Restoration Movement, the church is based on the Bible, whereas in reality, the Bible was based on the church. The church came before the Bible. They would've worshipped according to the pattern that they best knew of (the Torah), in addition to the word-of-mouth from the Apostles. Sola scriptura, to me, is not enough to define the church in its practises.

For starters, the instruments issue: The church was started 33AD - it is the verse in Ephesians that the CoC uses to prove that instruments are outlawed. Ephesians was written in the 60s AD. That leaves a gap. What would they have done before then, prior to the commandment? Use musical instruments as written in the Torah!? There are many questions like this that just can't be answered by sola scriptura.

Regarding the 3rd-generation Apostles, they were the ones directly taught by members of the 12. People like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. They must have had it right in the letters they wrote, because they were directly taught by the spirit-guided Apostles. They would've known the truth exactly. They would've had to have been retarded to fall into apostacy.

[JDIBe]

AJ, there is considerable evidence that all of the books of the NT were universally accepted by about 100 A.D. except for five (Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation). These five were accepted by some, but not all, during the earliest of times due to geographical differences. When all of the evidence was considered, they were admitted. Say we take the "safe route" and discard them. What doctrine could be disproved by not using them? I would say none. I will try to elaborate further in a later post.

I agree the Bible was written coexisting with the early church. And I agree we use the Bible today to pattern our church. But we do not have the Apostles. So what can we do? Does it not seem logical that if...
1. The Bible is a record of the teachings of the Apostles and practices of the early church.
2. We are 2000 years removed from the Apostles and any early Christians and cannot speak to them directly.

Then it necessarily follows that if we follow the Bible we are following the early church and the Apostle's teaching?

What is the alternative? Follow some man's teaching from 700, 1000, 1500, 2000 years later? Do these sources seem as reliable to you as the original one?

As far as instruments go, yes Ephesians was written in ~63 AD........by the Apostle Paul! I consider this source authoritative. Please read my thread on what the earliest Christians had to say about IM. Every reputable biblical scholar will tell you the early Church DIDN'T worship with IM from the outset. There is no mention of worshiping with instruments "as our fathers did". The historical (and I would say Scriptural...) evidence HIGHLY suggests this was never so. To say otherwise is rampant speculation with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Are assertions with no evidence on par with Scripture? (Keep in mind the church started in a localized area and then spread. It did not start everywhere at once.)

As for the earliest church fathers, I agree there is much merit in reading what they had to say. They are "second-hand" sources that lend insight into how the earliest Christians viewed Scripture and interpreted it. They were not, did not claim to be, were ever written about as, or would ever have thought of themselves as, Apostles. You will not find that concept in any of their writings, their contemporaries writings, or historical church documents. Yes, they spoke of Apostles and Prophets regularly, but it was always of the original 12 and OT prophets, never themselves. Thus their writings should be given some consideration, but they are not inspired. Scripture always trumps the Fathers.

Yes, people like Ignatius and Polycarp received their teachings directly from Apostles and should be considered a more credible source than one from 800 years later. But they were not inspired as the Apostles were, so it is best to use them to amplify meaning in light of what the Scriptures say.

We, through the Bible, are taught by the Apostles directly, too. Yet there are many who have fallen away from the truth as well.

[AJB4]

AJ, there is considerable evidence that all of the books of the NT were universally accepted by about 100 A.D. except for five (Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation). These five were accepted by some, but not all, during the earliest of times due to geographical differences. When all of the evidence was considered, they were admitted. Say we take the "safe route" and discard them. What doctrine could be disproved by not using them? I would say none. I will try to elaborate further in a later post.

I agree the Bible was written coexisting with the early church. And I agree we use the Bible today to pattern our church. But we do not have the Apostles. So what can we do? Does it not seem logical that if...
1. The Bible is a record of the teachings of the Apostles and practices of the early church.
2. We are 2000 years removed from the Apostles and any early Christians and cannot speak to them directly.

Then it necessarily follows that if we follow the Bible we are following the early church and the Apostle's teaching?

What is the alternative? Follow some man's teaching from 700, 1000, 1500, 2000 years later? Do these sources seem as reliable to you as the original one?

As far as instruments go, yes Ephesians was written in ~63 AD........by the Apostle Paul! I consider this source authoritative. Please read my thread on what the earliest Christians had to say about IM. Every reputable biblical scholar will tell you the early Church DIDN'T worship with IM from the outset. There is no mention of worshiping with instruments "as our fathers did". The historical (and I would say Scriptural...) evidence HIGHLY suggests this was never so. To say otherwise is rampant speculation with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Are assertions with no evidence on par with Scripture? (Keep in mind the church started in a localized area and then spread. It did not start everywhere at once.)

As for the earliest church fathers, I agree there is much merit in reading what they had to say. They are "second-hand" sources that lend insight into how the earliest Christians viewed Scripture and interpreted it. They were not, did not claim to be, were ever written about as, or would ever have thought of themselves as, Apostles. You will not find that concept in any of their writings, their contemporaries writings, or historical church documents. Yes, they spoke of Apostles and Prophets regularly, but it was always of the original 12 and OT prophets, never themselves. Thus their writings should be given some consideration, but they are not inspired. Scripture always trumps the Fathers.

Yes, people like Ignatius and Polycarp received their teachings directly from Apostles and should be considered a more credible source than one from 800 years later. But they were not inspired as the Apostles were, so it is best to use them to amplify meaning in light of what the Scriptures say.

We, through the Bible, are taught by the Apostles directly, too. Yet there are many who have fallen away from the truth as well.
So they were universally accepted...it doesn't mean that for the early few centuries, before mass-production, they were readily available, which is why the Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.) would have been largely responsible for keeping the early church faith going. They, as the direct students of the Apostles, would have been able to keep the faith going, otherwise, it probably wouldn't have the huge following it does today.

What is the alternative? Follow some man's teaching from 700, 1000, 1500, 2000 years later? Do these sources seem as reliable to you as the original one?Don't you think that the Restoration Movement did this? Of course, just like any man who has derived teachings from the Bible 700, 1000, 1500, 2000 years later, the Restoration Movement leaders derived their teachings from the Bible, and today, the Restoration Movement still follows them - the particular mindset and interpretations of the Restoration Movement fathers. CoC'ers may argue with me and say 'their teachings are the teachings of the Bible'....well, the Baptists would say the same things about John Smythe, so that argument doesn't really go anywhere. Even if the Restoration Movement has the least erroneous teachings of all, it doesn't make the teachings of the Restoration Movement the teachings of the Bible, per-se. Make no mistake, I believe that the CoC exclusively can trace their roots back to the early 1800s, and no further.

Yes, people like Ignatius and Polycarp received their teachings directly from Apostles and should be considered a more credible source than one from 800 years later. But they were not inspired as the Apostles were, so it is best to use them to amplify meaning in light of what the Scriptures say. 1) Ignatius said in his letter to Smyrna (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-polycarp-lightfoot.html): "take heed to your Bishop". That letter was written in 105 AD, no less that 10 years after Revelation. Most CoCers see the episcopal church system as apostate, yet we see here by the letter that it was well in place no less than 5 years out of the first century (perhaps put in place many years before), as he was a Bishop at Antioch, as was Polycarp at Smyrna. Since he was directly taught by the Apostles, as was Polycarp, they would have known exactly what was apostacy and what wasn't. If they weren't to be Bishops, then the Apostles would have taught them otherwise (obviously the Apostles did not). In fact, since the general consensus is that Ignatius became Bishop of Antioch in 68-69AD, obviously the Apostles (who were divinely inspired, were perfectly fine with the Episcopal system, and that they used it in the times of the early church. Do you see how sola scriptura is extremely limiting to the theology of a church? The Bible alone only either speaks of Elders OR Bishops, while the early church history and Apostolic Father's writings would suggest that the early church was indeed episcopate, as least by the mid-first century. It if was apostacy, it would've been stopped. It wasn't apostacy obviously, therefore it wasn't stopped. 'Congregationalist polity' was actually unheard of in Christianity before the Protestant Reformation, it seems.

2) While the NT in its entirety may have been accepted by 100AD, that doesn't mean it was readily available, in fact, it would be quite to the contrary, as mass-production was not yet available for copies of the NT to be made. While the canon may have been unofficially decided by 100AD, it would have been officially decided, and put into a final mass-produced book form, by the 3rd century, like people say. Therefore, they would have relied on the teachings of the early church fathers, who were direct students of the 12, to keep the original faith running. They may have been divinely inspired, and they may not have been. Either way, they were taught directly by the 12, knew exactly what was right and wrong, and were MARTYRED for their faiths. Do you think they would allow themselves to be martyred for a faith that they knew was apostate? I don't think so.

[WesWoodell]

Elders, Bishops, Shepherds, and Pastors were different words to describe the same thing in the Bible.

A bishop wasn't over an elder, and an elder wasn't over a bishop - they were the same thing.

[AJB4]

Elders, Bishops, Shepherds, and Pastors were different words to describe the same thing in the Bible.

A bishop wasn't over an elder, and an elder wasn't over a bishop - they were the same thing.
It appears that way with sola scriptura, since the Bible only either talks about a Bishop OR Presbyter, but in Ignatius' letters, it said to take heed to a single Bishop:

Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. I am devoted to those who are subject to the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons.

Obviously, by 105AD, they were not the same thing. If you delve into the early writings of the fathers just outside of the first century, it seems like the episcopacy was well in place, and like I said, since Iggy was taught directly by the Apostles, and would've known just what Apostacy was, then he wouldn't have become a bishop if he knew it was apostate.

[JDIBe]

So they were universally accepted...it doesn't mean that for the early few centuries, before mass-production, they were readily available, which is why the Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.) would have been largely responsible for keeping the early church faith going. They, as the direct students of the Apostles, would have been able to keep the faith going, otherwise, it probably wouldn't have the huge following it does today.


Something cannot be "universally accepted" unless it is "readily available", can it not? Keep in mind that the Church started in a very localized area and then spread out. It would have been very easy to take the Scriptures with them as they went. Also, keep in mind that some of Paul's letters were meant to be "chain letters" from the very beginning, so they were meant to spread.


Don't you think that the Restoration Movement did this? Of course, just like any man who has derived teachings from the Bible 700, 1000, 1500, 2000 years later, the Restoration Movement leaders derived their teachings from the Bible, and today, the Restoration Movement still follows them - the particular mindset and interpretations of the Restoration Movement fathers. CoC'ers may argue with me and say 'their teachings are the teachings of the Bible'....well, the Baptists would say the same things about John Smythe, so that argument doesn't really go anywhere.


If this is a valid arguement then it must be made against tradition as well since there are Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches.


Even if the Restoration Movement has the least erroneous teachings of all, it doesn't make the teachings of the Restoration Movement the teachings of the Bible, per-se. Make no mistake, I believe that the CoC exclusively can trace their roots back to the early 1800s, and no further.


If this is really what you believe, then why consider going to something LESS accurate? Wouldn't that be taking a step backwards instead of forward? Where and when someone wants to argue this particular interpretation of the Bible started is of no importance to me. What is important, is if it is valid and it's teachings true. I would only state that if someone wanted to start a "Lion's Club" for example, followed the bylaws of the Lion's Club, conducted club business like a Lion's Club, took the goals and aims of the Lion's Club, then that would probably make them a Lion. I feel a certain kinship with the Christians of the 1st Century. You may agree with that or disagree.


1) Ignatius said in his letter to Smyrna (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-polycarp-lightfoot.html): "take heed to your Bishop". That letter was written in 105 AD, no less that 10 years after Revelation. Most CoCers see the episcopal church system as apostate, yet we see here by the letter that it was well in place no less than 5 years out of the first century (perhaps put in place many years before), as he was a Bishop at Antioch, as was Polycarp at Smyrna. Since he was directly taught by the Apostles, as was Polycarp, they would have known exactly what was apostacy and what wasn't. If they weren't to be Bishops, then the Apostles would have taught them otherwise (obviously the Apostles did not). In fact, since the general consensus is that Ignatius became Bishop of Antioch in 68-69AD, obviously the Apostles (who were divinely inspired, were perfectly fine with the Episcopal system, and that they used it in the times of the early church.


And this is a great example of how murky the writings of the Early Church Fathers can be sometimes. For a discussion on the authenticity of Ignatius as a Bishop, see.... http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.html

Here is a writting from Clement around 96 AD, which seems to suggest Bishops/Elders and Deacons were still in use at his time. It is significant that the letter itself.... 1. refers only to the presbyters of Corinth 2. makes no reference to the Bishop of Corinth and 3. Is addressed from the church of Rome and makes no mention of the Bishop there either.

I Clem 42:1-5
1 The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.
2 So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.
3 Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.
4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
5 And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.

I do agree with you that at least sometime around the middle of the 2nd Century the office of Bishop became separate from that of Elder. So the question becomes... which form of church government do we restore? I would contend the earliest would have the greatest chance of being the best. A side benefit of this would be to keep heresy from spreading through the church as quickly.


Do you see how sola scriptura is extremely limiting to the theology of a church?


Ahh, here we go..... What theology that you feel should be included is not contained within the Scriptures?



2) While the NT in its entirety may have been accepted by 100AD, that doesn't mean it was readily available, in fact, it would be quite to the contrary, as mass-production was not yet available for copies of the NT to be made. While the canon may have been unofficially decided by 100AD, it would have been officially decided, and put into a final mass-produced book form, by the 3rd century, like people say. Therefore, they would have relied on the teachings of the early church fathers, who were direct students of the 12, to keep the original faith running. They may have been divinely inspired, and they may not have been. Either way, they were taught directly by the 12, knew exactly what was right and wrong, and were MARTYRED for their faiths. Do you think they would allow themselves to be martyred for a faith that they knew was apostate? I don't think so.

But they were men nonetheless. And men make mistakes. The classic game of "Telephone" where one person whispers something to another and so on down the line is a good example. By the end of the line what is repeated is totally different than what was originally stated. The best way to find the truth is to ask the original person what they said! Asking people down the line will give you glimmers of truth (some very accurate, others not.) Odds are, the closer to the first person, the more accurate they are. We are very fortunate to have the "Original Sources". Those are the ones we base everything else we read off of. The early Church Fathers felt that way too. They constantly quoted Scripture. It has been said that if all of the NT documents somehow suddenly disappeared, we could reconstruct the entire NT except for 15-20 verses from the early Church Fathers! We should have such a high regard for the Scriptures as well.

[AJB4]

If this is a valid arguement then it must be made against tradition as well since there are Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches.

The Bible speaks of tradition. It tells us to keep the traditions that the apostles taught (2 Thessalonians 2:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%202:15;&version=9;), 1 Corinthians 11:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%2011:2;&version=49;).

And this is a great example of how murky the writings of the Early Church Fathers can be sometimes. For a discussion on the authenticity of Ignatius as a Bishop, see.... http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.html

I read that. Most of what's written is shameless nit-pickings, saying stuff like 'he didn't mention in one letter what he did in another'. Scholars and historians throughout history must have certified them authentic for some reason. Then some guy (who is obviously an anti-catholic with an axe to grind) comes along and says that they're false? Meh. I prefer trusting historians and scholars rather than guys who post random ham-fisted arguments on random web-pages.

I Clem 42:1-5
1 The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.
2 So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.
3 Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.
4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
5 And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.[/i]

I do agree with you that at least sometime around the middle of the 2nd Century the office of Bishop became separate from that of Elder. So the question becomes... which form of church government do we restore? I would contend the earliest would have the greatest chance of being the best. A side benefit of this would be to keep heresy from spreading through the church as quickly.

That's one early church father writing out of many. Most early church fathers (if I'm not mistaken) talk about a singular bishop, which goes back to something else you said:

But they were men nonetheless. And men make mistakes. The classic game of "Telephone" where one person whispers something to another and so on down the line is a good example.

Not a bad analogy, but in a game of "Telephone", it's usually the 4th or 5th person down the line who stuffs it up. The early church fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp etc.) were secondary. I don't think that you and I are in any position to contend with the faiths of these martyrs. In New Zealand we call it "Chinese Whispers" :D

Ahh, here we go..... What theology that you feel should be included is not contained within the Scriptures?

None in particular, but the Bible states that not all that the Apostles wanted to say was included in their epistles, and it also states that if the Bible had included everything that Jesus and the Apostles did, the whole world could not contain the books that would be written (2 John 1:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20John%201:12;&version=9;), 3 John 1:13-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=3%20John%201:13-14;&version=9;), John 21:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:25;&version=9;)).

Early on in church history, of course, the members of the early church would have known about early church history that would have filled in the blanks that the Bible says that it left, regarding some of the things that Jesus and the Apostles did. It's only much later, however, particularly with the Protestant Reformation, that they defend their positions simply by saying that the early church letters are unauthentic, yet most (if not all) historians and scholars throughout history have found the letters authentic.

I think that the Bible makes it quite clear that not everything that they did back then, nor everything they taught, practised, or whatever, was included in the Bible by itself. That's where I think sola scriptura and 'silence of scripture' are most flawed. The Bible itself says that not everything that they said or did is in it.

There are a few verses that may (though vaguely) make reference to Apostolic Succession or teaching early church fathers that MAY have been spirit-guided (who knows) to carry on the teachings of the early church, especially to fill in the blanks that the Bible states are there (2 Tim 2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%202:2;&version=9;), Acts 2:42 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:42;&version=9;), Acts 8:30-31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:30-31;&version=9;), Hebrews 5:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:30-31;&version=9;)).

There's also another verse here that many sola scriptura people (Protestants) use:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17;&version=9;)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

It makes it clear what the scriptures are good for here. Granted, the scriptures equip a man for every good work, but it doesn't say here that a man is made complete with the scriptures alone.

As for that writing by Clement, I'll ask the Orthodox and see what they think ;)

[JDIBe]

There's also another verse here that many sola scriptura people (Protestants) use:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17;&version=9;)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

It makes it clear what the scriptures are good for here. Granted, the scriptures equip a man for every good work, but it doesn't say here that a man is made complete with the scriptures alone.


All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


As for that writing by Clement, I'll ask the Orthodox and see what they think ;)

I would imagine they would agree with that.

"In the New Testament, the terms bishop and presbyter are used interchangeably. This is evident from the following passage from Titus 1:5-7."
(THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 156)

[AJB4]

I would imagine they would agree with that.

"In the New Testament, the terms bishop and presbyter are used interchangeably. This is evident from the following passage from Titus 1:5-7."
(THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 156)

I think that they said that the episcopacy, diocese and priesthood (etc.) were introduced mainly to cater to the growing number of peoples in the early church just coming into the second century.

I just looked at Titus 1:5-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%201:5-7&version=9), and I'm just thinking - were they talking about the same position?:

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre.

That's an issue I've had. In the Bible, whenever it speaks of Bishops, it speaks in a singular manner, and whenever it uses the word elder, it always seems to be speaking in a plural manner.

I don't really think God would be too nit-picky about the system of government used in church anyway (within reason of course). When it comes to church government, I think, whatever works for the people is fine. God ain't some dictator. In the non-essentials, liberty, remember?:)

[fishon]

ABJ4 writes:
"Now, as they were direct students of the Apostles, I doubt that they would've fallen into Apostacy easily. They would've known what to do. The Holy Spirit would've kept them from falling into Apostacy because there was simply no other way to preserve the teachings, as the NT didn't exist in book form yet, and was probably unavailable to the vast majority of early Christians."

I do believe the Apostle Paul talked to the Galatians about apostacy in Galatians 1:6-9.

Now please, don't take this wrong, but it doesn't seem as if the Holy Spirit was putting a stop to the apostacy that was taking place. Now, no doubt, He was using Paul to try and put a stop to it, but He wasn't moving by Himself. Not that He couldn't.
fishon

[AJB4]

ABJ4 writes:
"Now, as they were direct students of the Apostles, I doubt that they would've fallen into Apostacy easily. They would've known what to do. The Holy Spirit would've kept them from falling into Apostacy because there was simply no other way to preserve the teachings, as the NT didn't exist in book form yet, and was probably unavailable to the vast majority of early Christians."

I do believe the Apostle Paul talked to the Galatians about apostacy in Galatians 1:6-9.

Now please, don't take this wrong, but it doesn't seem as if the Holy Spirit was putting a stop to the apostacy that was taking place. Now, no doubt, He was using Paul to try and put a stop to it, but He wasn't moving by Himself. Not that He couldn't.
fishon
1) Back then, as they had the word-of-mouth from the Apostles and Jesus himself, and there was not as much need for the Bible as they had the sources living at that time readily available to teach them things. On the other hand, after Jesus and the Apostles died, as the Bible would not have been largely available to most of the Christian world (until methods of easy mass-production were invented). Another interesting observation made by an article I read on an Orthodox website was that a good lot of the people at that time were uneducated, and were illiterate. Only a select few people were actually able to read. Now, as the direct sources had died, there would have to have been something to preserve the teachings that would have been lost before too long if something wasn't done. It would have made sense to me that the spirit guided certain men handpicked by the Apostles to preserve the teachings and traditions of the early church, because it was a time of great need, as the NT would have been largely unavailable for people to read after word-of-mouth from Jesus and the Apostles had expired because:

A) The circulation of the NT would have been extremely limited, because there was no mass-production, and everything would have to have been painfully written out by hand to cater to the many, many churches that would have been established by the time both Jesus and the Apostles had died.

B) Since most people were probably illiterate and unable to read, they would have needed word-of-mouth from the Apostles and Jesus to know what to do anyway. Only wealthy people back then got an education (if I remember correctly). There were no schools or anything that taught literacy back then.

And so, the spirit, in a time of extremely limited knowledge of the truth, and a crucial time in the growth of Christianity, the spirit guides certain men (the early church fathers), hand-picked and taught by the Apostles, to carry on the traditions and teachings of the early church, until the time when the Bible was able to be mass-produced, so people could read the truth for themselves. It makes perfect sense to me.

Also, though recognized by Christ as a disciple of his, Paul was not one of the spirit-guided 12 Apostles anyway. The 12 Apostles were Peter, Andrew, James, John, Phillip, Thomas, Matthew, Bartholomew, James (the less), Simon, Theddeus, and Judas (Matthias took Judas' place). They would have been the spirit-guided ones. Paul was a Christian, a disciple, but not a spirit-guided Apostles. It makes sense that the church in Galatians did not stop their apostacy at his bidding (not that there's any evidence that they didn't.)

[WesWoodell]

Consider this -

Paul referred to himself as an apostle:

Romans 1:1
1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--
(NIV)

2 Corinthians 1:1a
1a Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God ...
(NIV)

Galatians 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle-- sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead--
(NIV)

Ephesians 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:
(NIV)

Colossians 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
(NIV)

1 Timothy 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,
(NIV)

2 Timothy 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus,
(NIV)

Paul referred to himself as an apostle abnormally born:

1 Corinthians 15:8-10a
8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10a But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect.
(NIV)

Jesus Christ referred to Paul as His chosen instrument to spread His gospel:

Acts 9:10-15
10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!" "Yes, Lord," he answered.
11 The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying.
12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight."
13 "Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem.
14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name."
15 But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.
(NIV)

Paul possessed the ability to impart Spiritual Gifts to others (something reserved only for Spirit-led apostles):

Romans 1:11
11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong--
(NIV)

Paul possessed the power to strike Elymas blind by the Holy Spirit:

Acts 13:9-11
9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,
10 "You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?
11 Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind, and for a time you will be unable to see the light of the sun." Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand.
(NIV)

Peter believed Paul's wisdom was God given (or, one could argue, Spirit guided):

2 Peter 3:15
15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
(NIV)

It looks to me like Paul was Spirit-led and approved by God, and it also looks like he had the same authority as one of the Twelve. The Twelve along with Paul were the only ones who could impart spiritual gifts to other people.

[AJB4]

Consider this -

Paul referred to himself as an apostle:

Romans 1:1
1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--
(NIV)

2 Corinthians 1:1a
1a Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God ...
(NIV)

Galatians 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle-- sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead--
(NIV)

Ephesians 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:
(NIV)

Colossians 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
(NIV)

1 Timothy 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,
(NIV)

2 Timothy 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus,
(NIV)

Paul referred to himself as an apostle abnormally born:

1 Corinthians 15:8-10a
8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10a But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect.
(NIV)

Jesus Christ referred to Paul as His chosen instrument to spread His gospel:

Acts 9:10-15
10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!" "Yes, Lord," he answered.
11 The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying.
12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight."
13 "Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem.
14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name."
15 But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.
(NIV)

Paul possessed the ability to impart Spiritual Gifts to others (something reserved only for Spirit-led apostles):

Romans 1:11
11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong--
(NIV)

Paul possessed the power to strike Elymas blind by the Holy Spirit:

Acts 13:9-11
9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,
10 "You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?
11 Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind, and for a time you will be unable to see the light of the sun." Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand.
(NIV)

Peter believed Paul's wisdom was God given (or, one could argue, Spirit guided):

2 Peter 3:15
15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
(NIV)

It looks to me like Paul was Spirit-led and approved by God, and it also looks like he had the same authority as one of the Twelve. The Twelve along with Paul were the only ones who could impart spiritual gifts to other people.
Thanks for pointed that out. I stand corrected.

[JDIBe]

1) Back then, as they had the word-of-mouth from the Apostles and Jesus himself, and there was not as much need for the Bible as they had the sources living at that time readily available to teach them things. On the other hand, after Jesus and the Apostles died, as the Bible would not have been largely available to most of the Christian world (until methods of easy mass-production were invented). Another interesting observation made by an article I read on an Orthodox website was that a good lot of the people at that time were uneducated, and were illiterate. Only a select few people were actually able to read. Now, as the direct sources had died, there would have to have been something to preserve the teachings that would have been lost before too long if something wasn't done. It would have made sense to me that the spirit guided certain men handpicked by the Apostles to preserve the teachings and traditions of the early church, because it was a time of great need, as the NT would have been largely unavailable for people to read after word-of-mouth from Jesus and the Apostles had expired because:

A) The circulation of the NT would have been extremely limited, because there was no mass-production, and everything would have to have been painfully written out by hand to cater to the many, many churches that would have been established by the time both Jesus and the Apostles had died.

B) Since most people were probably illiterate and unable to read, they would have needed word-of-mouth from the Apostles and Jesus to know what to do anyway. Only wealthy people back then got an education (if I remember correctly). There were no schools or anything that taught literacy back then.

And so, the spirit, in a time of extremely limited knowledge of the truth, and a crucial time in the growth of Christianity, the spirit guides certain men (the early church fathers), hand-picked and taught by the Apostles, to carry on the traditions and teachings of the early church, until the time when the Bible was able to be mass-produced, so people could read the truth for themselves. It makes perfect sense to me.


Good point, but...

1. If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope/Patriarch before the time of modern instant live communication?

2. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? Would not the same logic apply to illiterates in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches?

If Catholic and Orthodox laity can "know the truth" by hearing the catechism read to them, then why not illiterate Christians when they hear the Bible read?

3. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do the illiterate Catholic and Orthodox commoner know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they could not read the documents?

4. How do the Catholic and Orthodox commoners who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they did not possess copies of such documents?

It seems to me that whether you believe in tradition or sola Scriptura, you are in the same boat if you are illiterate or do not have access to certain documents. You must rely on a trusted source to teach you. What remains is simply a question of AUTHORITY. The method of learning is the same. The source is just different. I would contend the Scriptures are the ultimate, sufficient, and final source of authority, and much better than Council's decisions and edicts from Popes and Patriarchs.


Also, though recognized by Christ as a disciple of his, Paul was not one of the spirit-guided 12 Apostles anyway. The 12 Apostles were Peter, Andrew, James, John, Phillip, Thomas, Matthew, Bartholomew, James (the less), Simon, Theddeus, and Judas (Matthias took Judas' place). They would have been the spirit-guided ones. Paul was a Christian, a disciple, but not a spirit-guided Apostles. It makes sense that the church in Galatians did not stop their apostacy at his bidding (not that there's any evidence that they didn't.)

Although this has been covered by Wes more than adequately, I'd also like to throw Acts 16:6-7 into the mix...

Acts 16:6-7
6 They {Paul and companions on 2nd Missionary Journey - JDA} went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking the message in the province of Asia.
7 When they came to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them to do this

That's about as Spirit-led as one can get. Not to beat a dead horse, but the reason I bring this up, is I always wondered, (And I can't prove it or have any reasonable evidence. I don't think it could be proven.) If you look on a map, toward Asia is a "right-hand turn". I wonder if Paul was trying to loop back like he did on his 1st Missionary Journey. Maybe the H.S. turned Paul's 2nd into something much longer and broader-scoped than he originally intended.

Something to think about. Sometimes when we undertake projects and ask God for guidance, they might turn out a little different and require more time than we originally thought. But they also might accomplish His Purpose in a much greater way than we ever thought it could. We just have to be willing to listen and be willing to be led.

(Anyway a nice break from the discussion and a thought for the day...:) )

[AJB4]

Good points, good points.

JDIBe, though your point is valid, I doubt you'd find too many illiterate people now. That's why there'd be no longer a need for the early church fathers to carry on the faith (if they did that indeed). I can't really speak for the literacy rate when catechisms were written, so I can't answer your question very effectively.

All I know is, back then, there was no mass production, and the literacy rate was pretty bad. I might create a topic in General Theology about this.